"I tried to make a million adjustments to get around it, to the point where now I'm standing on the first-base side, trying to get an angle because I can't throw sinkers anymore because my arm doesn't work right,"

Yes, 2003 Tommy John Surgery. And, I'm not joining in on one side/the other of the argument here, just presenting the facts.

I will add - I do think pitchers are babied these days, but I also think that an arm/serious injury for damn near every pitcher is inevitable. And if an individual pitcher is one of the lucky few who don't have issues, they should consider themselves lucky/gifted.

"The picture that emerges is of baseball at war with itself over the health of its arms. In one corner stands a cottage industry of scientists and biomechanics-promoting coaches who study motion for a living and have determined, through high-speed video analysis, that the sport's ignorance of arm-saving science is a shameful oversight. In the other is major league baseball, which, with rare and fleeting exceptions, clings to a deep-rooted tradition..."

First, there are a ton more pitchers in use in MLB than there were "back in the day". Really the number of guys whose arms can stand up to that kind of abuse probably isn't able to keep up with the demand for said arms.

Second, I'd guess (not having checked the stats) that the average pitcher has a longer career today than he did 40 years ago.

Third, I think some of this issue is perception. I mean we remember all these long lived great pitchers from days of yore because they were great long lived pitchers. You aren't going to remember the hundreds/thousands of guys who were 1-5 season MLB pitchers who blew out an elbow or ended up simply sucking their way out of the league. Thus our perception of how macho/strong/powerful the pitchers back then were because we only know/remember the guys who lasted a long time and pitched well. For every Walter Johnson there are 500 nameless wannabes none of us can name.

I won't comment on Sale because I cannot speak with any authority on the issue. However I will ask this question: Some people have compared him to Randy Johnson's throwing motion. I don't know whether Johnson had a classic inverted W or not, but how true is this analogy and how much of a difference does it make?

__________________Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...

First, there are a ton more pitchers in use in MLB than there were "back in the day". Really the number of guys whose arms can stand up to that kind of abuse probably isn't able to keep up with the demand for said arms.

Second, I'd guess (not having checked the stats) that the average pitcher has a longer career today than he did 40 years ago.

Third, I think some of this issue is perception. I mean we remember all these long lived great pitchers from days of yore because they were great long lived pitchers. You aren't going to remember the hundreds/thousands of guys who were 1-5 season MLB pitchers who blew out an elbow or ended up simply sucking their way out of the league. Thus our perception of how macho/strong/powerful the pitchers back then were because we only know/remember the guys who lasted a long time and pitched well. For every Walter Johnson there are 500 nameless wannabes none of us can name.

I won't comment on Sale because I cannot speak with any authority on the issue. However I will ask this question: Some people have compared him to Randy Johnson's throwing motion. I don't know whether Johnson had a classic inverted W or not, but how true is this analogy and how much of a difference does it make?

The biggest difference in Johnson (and Chris O'Leary does mention this) is that he never saw the timing issues that, say, a Mark Prior, Chris Sale, or Stephen Strausburg did. The inverted W can be safe, it's just nearly impossible for it to be unless your timing is perfect. In all of the latter cases, the arms are routinely later than the rest of their body (causing it to raise above the shoulder and become the sole focal point for the body's momentum). Later in his career, Johnson was able to prevent this (essentially changing his form to a safer "borderline" version of the inverted W and building up his body to reduce the effects of the previous damage he caused. I think the biggest thing for people is the terminology. They're all inverted W's, yes. But when people talk about the danger, they're really only talking about one type.

To claim "100%" of pitchers who threw with the "inverted W" had career-ending injuries, one would need to produce video or photographic evidence of every major league pitcher who had ever thrown that way, along with substantiated newspaper accounts, or preferably, medical records, for every one of those pitchers.

Without that, it's unsubstantiated hyperbole.

You know what would be easier than that? Giving an example of one guy who didn't.

First, there are a ton more pitchers in use in MLB than there were "back in the day". Really the number of guys whose arms can stand up to that kind of abuse probably isn't able to keep up with the demand for said arms.

Second, I'd guess (not having checked the stats) that the average pitcher has a longer career today than he did 40 years ago.

Third, I think some of this issue is perception. I mean we remember all these long lived great pitchers from days of yore because they were great long lived pitchers. You aren't going to remember the hundreds/thousands of guys who were 1-5 season MLB pitchers who blew out an elbow or ended up simply sucking their way out of the league. Thus our perception of how macho/strong/powerful the pitchers back then were because we only know/remember the guys who lasted a long time and pitched well. For every Walter Johnson there are 500 nameless wannabes none of us can name.

I won't comment on Sale because I cannot speak with any authority on the issue. However I will ask this question: Some people have compared him to Randy Johnson's throwing motion. I don't know whether Johnson had a classic inverted W or not, but how true is this analogy and how much of a difference does it make?

People also seem to forget that the overall level of hitting was worse back in the day too. Until the 90s, how many 2nd basemen and shortstops could take one out of the park at any time? While there were still prodigious sluggers, overall most teams had a host of all defense, no offense slap hitters up the middle.

Pitchers today have to throw at maximum effort on every pitch as any batter can do real damage for a host of reasons. In the olden days pitchers could take multiple batters "off" and save up energy knowing that at worst they would give up a slap single.

People also seem to forget that the overall level of hitting was worse back in the day too. Until the 90s, how many 2nd basemen and shortstops could take one out of the park at any time? While there were still prodigious sluggers, overall most teams had a host of all defense, no offense slap hitters up the middle.

Pitchers today have to throw at maximum effort on every pitch as any batter can do real damage for a host of reasons. In the olden days pitchers could take multiple batters "off" and save up energy knowing that at worst they would give up a slap single.

There's more than twice as much talent available today than 50+ years ago that would mitigate that factor, not to mention the technological advances in sports medicine.

The league as a whole may play more games, but pitchers are obviously pitching much less. If it was simply that only the exceptional could face 1250 batters a year fifty years ago, we should still be seeing the elite pitchers throwing 300 odd innings a year.

edit: after more careful reading, perhaps this should have been posted in response to Voodoo's comment.

Third, I think some of this issue is perception. I mean we remember all these long lived great pitchers from days of yore because they were great long lived pitchers. You aren't going to remember the hundreds/thousands of guys who were 1-5 season MLB pitchers who blew out an elbow or ended up simply sucking their way out of the league. Thus our perception of how macho/strong/powerful the pitchers back then were because we only know/remember the guys who lasted a long time and pitched well. For every Walter Johnson there are 500 nameless wannabes none of us can name.

That's the same as what you have now, the difference is all of them throw less. Pitchers are still sucking their way of the league and blowing elbows, but now they have effective surgeries to help them comeback. Eighty years from now, god willing, as the theists would say, we'll only remember the Verlanders and Sabathias.

I'd be willing to bet pitchers fifty or more years ago just as often as today would have had 10-15 year careers even without the benefit of modern surgery. Of course, it would be difficult to determine whether a guy in 1920 quit at age 28 due to injuries or whether it was to save the old family farm from those dang Hatchetts or something along those lines.

That's the same as what you have now, the difference is all of them throw less. Pitchers are still sucking their way of the league and blowing elbows, but now they have effective surgeries to help them comeback. Eighty years from now, god willing, as the theists would say, we'll only remember the Verlanders and Sabathias.

I'd be willing to bet pitchers fifty or more years ago just as often as today would have had 10-15 year careers even without the benefit of modern surgery. Of course, it would be difficult to determine whether a guy in 1920 quit at age 28 due to injuries or whether it was to save the old family farm from those dang Hatchetts or something along those lines.

Yes I'm sure they would my point was that people simply have a perception that pitches were all studs back then not because they all were but because all we remember are the studs and yes the same will be true 50 years from now.

I am tired of having every thread hijacked with this quasi-science, you're more than welcome to play doctor/scout/whatever you want in here.

Give me a ****ing break. The thread was about whether we should trade Sale. Your vendetta against me is getting embarrassing.

I've been nothing but willing to discuss and have posted several links to show why I've come to my conclusions. If you don't agree with me, that's your business. But as I said, your inability to accept my point of view as a valid point of view after all that I've done to back it up is incredibly embarrassing, IMHO. You're trying to censor my point of view into a single thread in an attempt to invalidate it, because you can't do so with facts. How very sad and petty.